KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 24(4):1083-1094 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808

DOI 10.1007/s12205-020-0406-6 www.springer.com/12205

Geotechnical Engineering

Inclined Slice Method to Earth Pressure of Narrow Cohesionless Backfill

against Rigid Walls under Various Displacement Modes
a a
Yu-jian Lin , Fu-quan Chen , and Jun-tao Yanga

College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China

a

ARTICLE HISTORY ABSTRACT

Received 8 March 2019 The displacement modes of retaining walls in engineering are complicated, and the backfill
Revised 18 November 2019 behind retaining walls is often narrow. Failure mechanisms of soils under various displacement
Accepted 16 January 2020 modes of retaining walls have not been clarified yet in previous studies. According to results of
Published Online 9 March 2020 the finite element limit analysis, multiple sliding surfaces were observed developing reflectively
between interfaces on both sides in the active limit state. In rotational displacement modes,
KEYWORDS some layers of soil near the rotated point maintained in the non-limit state which was not
considered in the previous studies. Based on numerical analysis results, failure wedges were
Earth pressure divided into differential soil slice elements by an inclined slice method. An analytical model
Narrow backfill was established to estimate the earth pressure of the narrow backfill under various
Displacement modes displacement modes using the limit equilibrium method. The calculated results are consistent
Non-limit state with the data gathered from previous tests. Compared with previous studies, the proposed
Inclined slice method method can reflect failure mechanisms of the narrow backfill and be adapted to various
Limit equilibrium method displacement modes of the retaining wall. The accuracy of the calculation results is high in the
non-limit state soil layer. In addition, the boundary criterion between the narrow and semi-
limit backfills was determined. Based on extensive parametric studies, it can be concluded
that increasing the soil-wall interface friction and decreasing the backfill area would be
conducive to decreasing the earth pressure and the depth of resultant application point.

1. Introduction complex conditions with traditional theoretical methods and

It is difficult to avoid that construction work such as roads,
hydraulic structures, and urban foundation pits build near
existing buildings or on narrow construction space. Mountain
roads with a retaining wall close to a rock natural ground, a
multi-line ship lock adjacent to an existing lock chamber wall, a
foundation pits group in an urban construction site, and a sheet
pile wharf (Fig. 1) are some examples of adjacent construction
work. The construction method and the retaining structure are
often affected by factors such as existing structures, geological
conditions, and environmental protection. Normally, the
deformation of the retaining wall has a safety standard. When the
wall movement reaches or exceeds the standard, the retaining
wall can not meet the requirement for use, but the narrow
backfill behind the retaining wall may still be in the non-limit
state. Today, it is difficult to accurately predict the stress and
deformation characteristics of retaining walls and soils under
empirical formulas (Coulomb, 1776; Rankine, 1857; Jaky, 1944).
The calculation of the earth pressure of narrow backfill under
various displacement modes of wall urgently requires a solution.
The displacement modes of the retaining wall are complex
and diverse, and are now considered as an important factor in
research and design processes. Based on the existing model test
studies and numerical simulation results (Terzaghi, 1934; James
and Bransby, 1970; Milligan, 1983; Fang and Ishibashi, 1986;
Fang et al., 1994; Matsuzawa and Hazarika, 1996; Bahadori et
al., 2018; Hasheminezhad and Bahadori, 2019), it can be found
that the stress-strain state of a soil behind a wall has a
relationship with the displacement mode of the retaining wall;
the latter affects the failure mechanism of the backfill behind the
wall. Because of the different wall movements at different
depths, some soils may be in a non-limit state, the earth pressure
and its distribution are difficult to determine. According to the
wall movement, Bang (1985) divided the state of the soil behind

CORRESPONDENCE Fu-quan Chen phdchen@fzu.edu.cn College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
ⓒ 2020 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
1084 Y. Lin et al.
Fig. 1. Narrow Backfill in Engineering: (a) Mountain Roads, (b) Multi-Line Ship Locks, (c) Foundation Pit Groups, (d) Sheet Pile Wharf
the wall into the initial active state, intermediate active state, and
full active state. Chang (1997) believed that the wall movement
affects the shear strength of the soil behind the wall and
established the relationship between the displacement of the
retaining wall and the internal or the external friction angles.
Zhang et al. (1998) determined the relationship between the earth
pressure coefficient and the strain increment ratio through sand
triaxial tests, and derived the relationship between the wall
movement and the earth pressure coefficient. Wang (2000) used
the horizontal slice method to assume that there is a horizontal
shear force between the horizontal layers when the retaining wall
rotates. Moreover, the active earth pressure considering the
rotational displacement of the retaining wall was derived using
the limit equilibrium method. When the backfill behind the wall
is narrow, the failure mechanisms of the soil and the calculation
of the earth pressure are complicated. Take and Valsangkar
(2001) and Frydman and Keissar (1987) studied the earth pressure
at rest and active earth pressure under different backfill widths
with centrifugal model tests, and the studies found the earth
pressure of narrow backfills were less than that of semi-infinite
soils. Khosravi et al. (2013) and Ying et al. (2016) observed the
displacement field of narrow backfill in translational displacement
mode using particle image velocimetry. The image results showed
that the internal sliding surface of narrow backfill develops from
one side of the wall to the other, and the sliding wedge is a right-
angled trapezoid. Yang and Tang (2017) simulated the failure of
narrow backfills in various displacement modes through model
tests, and observed the morphology of sliding surfaces using
layered color sand. Based on the experimental results, the sliding
surface of narrow backfill was considered a smooth curve (Yang
et al., 2017). Yang et al. (2011) compared the results of their
numerical simulation with those of centrifugal model tests and
concluded that the narrow backfill cracks at the interface
between the soil and the backside wall during the failure which
results in backfill leakage and the redistribution of soil stress.
Ying et al. (2010) simulated the active failure of the narrow
backfill, and found that sliding surfaces in the soil develop as
reflection between the two walls. Li et al. (2017) studied the
relationship between the displacement of the retaining wall and
the earth pressure of the narrow backfill using discrete element
simulation. They indicated that the transition of the lateral
pressure can be divided into two stages based on the magnitudes
of wall movements, at which the interface friction and internal
friction are fully mobilized. Ni et al. (2018) proposed a model for
evaluating the lateral earth pressure distribution for retaining
walls as a function of intermediate displacement between the
active and passive conditions. Based on the model tests
phenomenon or the failure characteristics of narrow backfill in
the previous numerical simulation results, researchers have
established a variety of narrow backfill earth pressure calculation
models. Handy (1985) and Frydman and Keissar (1987) performed
stress analyses on the stress points at the soil-wall interface to
obtain a formula to calculate the earth pressure of narrow
backfill. Chen et al. (2017). Yang and Tang (2017) and Yang and
Deng (2019) studied the earth pressure of narrow backfill
between two vertical walls considering the soil arching effect by
model tests and the discrete element method and believed that
the sliding surface was the surface or the curve respectively.
They used the horizontal slice method to obtain the calculation
formula of earth pressure of the narrow backfill. Cao et al. (2019)
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 1085

simplified the trajectory of major principal stress to a straight line

and established a thin-layer element to estimate the passive earth
pressure on the retaining wall. Greco (2013) proposed the
assumption that the narrow backfill comprises multiple sliding
wedges when it is in the failure state. The equilibrium equation
was used for the force balance calculations of each sliding
wedge. The earth pressure of the narrow backfill was obtained
and its active earth pressure under the one-dimensional seismic
load was considered (Greco, 2014). Chen et al. (2019) deemed
that if a sliding surface arrives at the soil-wall interface, a new
failure route will be chosen, developing along the interface or
occurring another reflected sliding surface in the backfill.
In practical engineering, complex displacement modes of Fig. 2. FELA Models: (a) FELA Model, (b) Adaptivity Mesh
retaining walls and narrow backfills are becoming more common.
In previous studies, the failure mechanisms of narrow backfills
under various displacement modes of the retaining wall have
not been clarified yet. The development process from at rest to
active condition still need be explored. In this paper, the failure
mechanisms of narrow backfill with various wall movements
were investigated by finite element limit analysis. And an
analytic method for the earth pressure considering the
displacement modes of the retaining wall and the non-limit
state was established using an inclined slice method and a limit
equilibrium method.

2. Failure Mechanisms of Narrow Backfill

OptumG2 (Krabbenhoft et al., 2015) is a geotechnical analysis
software that combines limit analysis and finite element analysis
(FELA). It can automatically encrypt a mesh and has strong
convergence. It has unique advantages in complex geological
conditions, failure mechanism analysis of complex retaining
structures, the analysis of foundation bearing capacity and
reliability. Failure mechanisms, deformation characteristics, and
the active earth pressure of narrow backfill were simulated using
OptumG2. The analysis model and adaptivity mesh is shown in
Fig. 2. It was assumed that the retaining wall was built on solid
foundation, and the bottom of the backfill was fixed constraint.
The retaining wall and natural ground were simulated as rigid
bodies. The height of the retaining wall was H = 10m and the
distance between the base of the retaining wall and the natural
ground was B = 2m. The backfill comprises cohesionless soil and
was simulated using the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model. The
initial stress was simulated by gravity loading. The retaining
walls were moved in translational (T), rotated about the bottom
(RB) and rotated about the top (RT) displacement modes by
applying multiplier loads until the soil reaches the active state.
The parameters of soil are as follows: the unit weight of soil
was γ = 15.8 kN/m3, compression modulus was Es=18 MPa,
Poisson's ratio was μ = 0.3, internal friction angle was ϕ = 36o,
external friction angles were δ 1 = δ 2 = 25° , the inclination of
retaining wall was β1 = 90o, the inclination of natural ground
was β2 = 70o.
Comparing the strain cloud maps of the failure state obtained
Fig. 3. FELA Strain Cloud Maps: (a) T Mode, (b) RB Mode, (c) RT Mode
by FELA (Fig. 3), it can be seen that the failure mechanisms of
the narrow backfill in the three displacement modes were
completely different. When the retaining wall moves as the T
mode, multiple sliding surfaces occurred in the narrow backfill
that developed to the surface in the form of reflection. Under RB
mode, the backfill exhibited progressive failure from the top to
the toe due to the different wall movements at different depths. It
should be noted that the backfill locating above the sliding
surface is mostly plastic strain region which was composed of
multiple wedges. Under RT mode, there was no obvious sliding
surface in the top soil because there were less wall movements
on the top, the backfill in upper zone maintained integrity. The
sliding surface developed from the wall base to the natural
ground; only one reflection occurred. Therefore, in the analyses
of failure mechanisms of narrow backfill under various displacement
modes of the retaining wall, the development process of sliding
surfaces affected by the natural ground, the progressive failure of
backfill caused by the wall movements at different depths and
multiple failure wedges should be considered.
3. Calculation of Active Earth Pressure of Narrow
Backfill
The results of FELA show that the failure mechanisms of the
narrow backfill change with the displacement modes of the
1086 Y. Lin et al.

retaining wall. In order to adapt to the displacement mode of
the retaining wall, several researchers (Chang, 1997; Lu and
Yang, 2010; Liu, 2014) used the inclined differential soil slice
element calculation model. In this method, the failure sliding
wedge was composed of quasi-planar sliding surfaces parallel
to each other. This method can analyze the influence of the wall
movements at different depths on the force of the differential
soil element. Then, the distribution of earth pressure in
different displacement modes can be obtained. In the study of
narrow backfill, Greco (2013) assumed that the failure sliding
wedge is composed of multiple wedges in translational displacement
mode. When a sliding surface develops at the soil-wall interface, a
new potential sliding surface occurs as reflection. The earth
pressure can be calculated in combination with the limit equilibrium
analysis of each wedge. This assumption can be adapted to the
failure mechanisms of multiple potential sliding surfaces in the
narrow backfill. Aimed at the failure mechanisms of narrow
backfill under various displacement modes, a novel calculation
method for the active earth pressure of narrow backfill can be
proposed based on previous research. The proposed method is
based on the following basic assumptions:
1. The backfill comprises cohesionless soil which obeys the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion;
2. The retaining wall is long enough and the cross sections are
all the same. The study is in surface strain conditions.
of the sliding surface α is calculated using Coulomb (1776)’s
calculations:
− cot β + cot ( β − δ − ϕ )
cot α = − cot ( β − δ − ϕ ) + (1)
⎡⎣cot ( β − δ − ϕ ) + cot ϕ ⎤⎦
According to the failure mechanisms of narrow backfills,
the failure sliding wedge of narrow backfill is composed of a
plurality of wedges, and sliding wedges are composed of
several quasi-planar sliding surfaces parallel to each other. the
failure wedge can be divided into ABCD, ABDE and AEF, as
shown in Fig. 4(a). Figs. 4(c) and 4(d) demonstrate the division
principle of inclined differential soil slice elements. The
potential sliding surfaces AG and BT can be used to divide the
sliding wedge into a differential soil slice element I that
develops from the wall surface to the top surface of the backfill
and a differential soil slice element II that develops from one
side wall to the other. The depth positions of the critical points
T and G are zcr1 and zcr2, respectively. It is assumed that soil
slice elements are analyzed as rigid bodies.
z cr1 = (B + H cot β1 + H cot β 2 )sin α1 sin β1 csc(α1 + β1 ) (2)
z cr 2 = (B + H cot β1 + H cot β 2 )sin α 2 sin β 2 csc(α 2 + β 2 ) (3)
The number of potential sliding surfaces N can be calculated
with Eq. (4), where H − h is the calculated depth of the ith
i

Therefore, the calculation model of the earth pressure of sliding surface, where i corresponds to a positive integer, i = 1, 2,
narrow backfill under various displacement modes can be 3....
established, as shown in Fig. 4. The inclination of the potential ⎡ n
⎛ tan β 1 + tan β 2 ⎞⎤ sin β sin α
sliding surface develops from the retaining wall is expressed as h = ∑ ⎢ B + h −1 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ (4)
⎝ tan β 1 tan β 2 ⎠⎦ sin (β − α )
i i

=1 ⎣
α1, the inclination of the potential sliding surface develops from i

the natural ground is expressed as α2. And the horizontal wall When hi > H, N = i −1, (5)
movement at the depth z is recorded as Sz. Chen et al. (2017)
proved that the error between the inclination of the sliding where, h0 = 0. When i is odd, β = β2 and α = α1. When i is even,
surface and the Coulomb (1776) calculated value in the narrow β = β1 and α = α2.
backfill is negligible. To simplify the calculation, the inclination

Fig. 4. Analytical Models: (a) Calculation Model, (b) Wedge AFE, (c) Wedge ABDE, (d) Wedge ABCD
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 1087

3.1 Non-Limit State Soil
The wall movement varies at the different depths under various
displacement modes of the retaining wall. Sz = f (z) can be used to
fit the wall movement as a function of depth. Table 1 lists the
displacement functions of the typical retaining wall displacement
modes, where S is the maximum horizontal movement of the
retaining wall. Table 2 shows the wall movements required for the
soil to reach the active limit state Sa in the existing research results.
The strength of soil at the depth z can be expressed by the
strength variable internal friction angle ϕz and the soil-wall
friction angle δz. Liu (2014) provides an empirical formula for
the variation of the soil strength parameters with the wall
movements according to test results. Li et al. (2017) verified that
the width of backfill has little effect on the change of soil strength
parameters caused by discrete element numerical simulation. The
empirical formulas proposed by Liu (2014) can be applied to the
case of narrow backfill. Therefore, the internal friction angle ϕz
and the external friction angle δz can be derived as:
the wall friction angle δ in the limit state. ϕ0 is the internal
friction angle of the soil at rest, with:
⎛ 1 − K0 ⎞
ϕ 0 = arcsin⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (8)
⎝ 1 + K0 ⎠
where K0 is coefficient of earth pressure at rest, and can be
obtained using Jaky (1944)’s empirical formula K 0 = 1 − sin ϕ .
3.2 Force Analysis of Soil Slice Elements
3.2.1 Soil Slice Element I
Figure 5 shows the force analysis of the soil slice element I. dz
represents the vertical thickness of the slice element. The forces
acting on the soil slice element I include:
1. The gravity increment in soil slice element is dW1, and if α
value is known, the value, direction, and action point
position of dW1 are also known; the second-order micro-
component is omitted. Therefore:

⎧ 4 arctan(S z S a ) dW1 = γzdz (cot α + cot β ) (9)

⎪ϕ + (ϕ − ϕ0 ), S z ≤ Sa
ϕz = ⎨ 0 π 2. The supporting reaction force of soil acting on sliding
⎪⎩ϕ , (6)
S z > Sa surface is F. dF is the combination of the frictional and
normal forces acting on the sliding surface. The angle
⎧ 4 arctan(S z S c )
⎪ δ, S z ≤ Sc between dF and the normal of the sliding surface is equal to
δz = ⎨ π (7) the internal friction angle of the soil ϕz.
⎪⎩δ , S z > Sc 3. The force of the retaining wall on the slice element is e1.
where Sc corresponds to the wall movements required to reach The angle between e1 and the normal of the retaining wall
is equal to the friction angle of the soil-wall interface δz.
Table 1. Displacement Functions of Retaining Wall Sz It can be concluded from the sine law that:
Displacement modes Displacement functions cos (α1 − β1 − φ z )
e1 = dW1 (10)
Translational mode S =S cos (α1 − δ1z − φ z )
z

Rotating Base mode S Therefore, combining Eqs. (9) and (10):

S =S− z
H
z

cos (α1 − β1 − φ z )( cot α1 + cot β1 )

S e1 = γ zdz (11)
cos (α1 − φ z − δ1z )
Rotating Top mode
S = z
H
z

Arching mode 4S
S =− z (z − H ) 3.2.2 Soil Slice Element II
H2
z

Figure 6 shows the force analysis of the soil slice element II. dz

Table 2. Wall Movements Required for Soil to Reach Active Limit State
Sa
Type of Displacement Wall movement
References
backfill mode Sa
Dense sand T 0.1%H Terzaghi (1934)
RB 0.1%H
RB (0.1% − 0.4%)H Frydman and Keissar
(1987)
Medium sand T (0.1% − 0.2%)H Chen et al. (2004);
RB (0.2% − 0.4%)H Jiang et al. (2014)
RT (0.2% − 0.5%)H
Loose sand T 0.2%H Khosravi et al. (2013)
Fig. 5. Force Analysis of Soil Slice Element I: (a) Force Analysis, (b)
RB (0.2% − 0.4%)H Bowles (1977)
Equilibrium
1088 Y. Lin et al.

represents the vertical thickness of the slice element. The forces normal forces acting on the sliding surface. The angle
acting on the soil slice element II include: between dF and the normal of the sliding surface is equal to
1. The gravity increment in the soil slice element is dW2, and the internal friction angle of the soil ϕz.
if α value is known, the value, direction, and action point 3. The force of the retaining wall on the slice element is e2.
position of dW2 are also known; the second-order micro- The angle between e2 and the normal of the retaining wall
component is omitted. is equal to the friction angle of the soil-wall interface δ1z.
Therefore, 4. The force of another side on the slice element is ez. The
angle between ez and the normal of the natural ground is
1 sin (α + β1 )
dW2 = γ dz 2 equal to the friction angle of soil-wall interface δ2z.
2 sin β1 sin (α − β 2 ) (12) Balanced by vertical force:
⎡⎣ Bz cos ( β1 + β 2 ) − Bz cos ( β1 − β 2 ) − 2 ( H − z ) sin ( β1 + β 2 ) ⎤⎦
⎛π ⎞ ⎛π ⎞
where the distance between interfaces on both sides at the depth z. dW2 = ez sin ⎜ − β 2 + δ 2 z ⎟ + dF sin ⎜ − α + ϕ z ⎟
⎝2 ⎠ ⎝2 ⎠
tan β 2 + tan β1 (14)
B = B + (H − z ) (13) ⎛π
+ e2 sin ⎜ − β1 + δ1z ⎟
⎞
tan β1 tan β 2
z

⎝2 ⎠
2. The supporting reaction force of soil acting on the sliding
which can be transformed as:
surface is F. dF is the combination of the frictional and
dF = ⎡⎣dW2 − e2 cos ( β1 − δ1 ) − ez cos ( β2 − δ 2 z ) ⎤⎦ sec (α − ϕz ) (15)
Balanced by horizontal force:
⎛π ⎞ ⎛π ⎞ ⎛π ⎞
e2 cos ⎜ − β1 + δ1z ⎟ = ez cos ⎜ − β2 + δ2z ⎟ + dF cos ⎜ −α + ϕz ⎟ (16)
⎝2 ⎠ ⎝2 ⎠ ⎝2 ⎠
Therefore, combining Eqs. (15) and (16):
dW2 sin (α − φ z ) − ez sin (α − β 2 + δ 2 z − ϕ z )
e2 = (17)
sin (α + β1 − δ1z − ϕ z )
where the calculation depth of ez is:
zn +1 = zn + ⎣⎡ B + ( H − z ) cot β1 + ( H − z ) cot β 2 ⎦⎤
Fig. 6. Force Analysis of Soil Slice Element II: (a) Force Analysis, (b) (18)
Equilibrium csc (α1 − β 2 ) sin α1 sin β 2

Fig. 7. Calculation Method of Earth Pressure and Application Point: (a) Force Transmission Mechanism, (b) Differential Method
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 1089

As shown in Fig. 6(a), the vertical thickness of the contact

between the soil slice element II and the right wall surface can
⎛ n
⎞
be determined using the geometric relationship ⎜⎜ ∏ A ⎟⎟dz . i

⎝ i =1 ⎠
When i is odd,
sin (α 1 + β1 )sin β 2
A = (19)
sin (β 2 − α 1 )sin β1
i

and when i is even,

sin (α 2 + β 2 )sin β1
A = (20)
sin (β1 − α 2 )sin β 2
i

3.3 Calculation Process

The proposed method determines the earth pressure at any depth
position by calculating the combination of different types of soil
slices. Fig. 7 presents the calculated method of earth pressure at
any depths.
Figure 7(a) shows the calculation of the earth pressure at the
depth zn and the force transmission mechanism between the soil
slice elements in the case of three sliding surfaces. Firstly, the
class I soil slice element (1) is included in the sliding wedge
AFE and is located at the depth zn+2. The vertical thickness of
the slice element is A1A2dz. The thrust ΔE1 applied to the soil
slice element (1) by the left wall can be obtained from Eq. (11).
Secondly, the class II soil slice element (2) is included in the
Fig. 8. Calculation Flow Chart
sliding wedge ABDE and is located at the depth zn+1. The
vertical thickness of the slice element is A1dz. The thrust ΔE2
applied to the soil slice element (2) by the right wall can be
obtained from Eq. (17). It should be noted that the left wall also application point can be calculated as:
applies a thrust ΔE1 to soil slice element (2) that has already 1 n

obtained in the first step. Thirdly, the class II soil slice element Z =
s ∑ ΔE Δz(i − 0.5)
E =1
i
(23)
(3) is included in the sliding wedge ABDC and is located at the
i

depth zn. The vertical thickness of the slice element is dz. The The earth pressure and the coefficient of earth pressure can be
thrust ΔE3 applied to soil slice element (3) by the left wall can obtained with:
be obtained from Eq. (17). Similarly, the thrust ΔE2 applied to ΔE
soil slice element (3) has already been obtained in the second σh = i
(24)
i
Δz
step.
Figure 7(b) shows the principle of the finite difference σh
Ka = i
(25)
method. In order to determine the total active thrust E and
i
γΔz (i − 0.5) sin β1
application point Zs, the finite difference method can be used to The proposed method is a cyclic calculation process. The total
divide the depth H of the retaining wall into n calculation points active thrust can be obtained by accumulating the earth pressure
P0, P1, P2, …, Pn with the depth Δz, where the depth of Pi is iΔE. at each calculation point. The calculation flow chart is as follow:
The accuracy of the finite difference method is determined by
Δz. The total active thrust on P0Pi is Ei. When i = n, E = En. The 4. Analysis and Discussion
local thrust on Pi−1Pi is ΔEi.
Δz The calculation method to earth pressure of narrow backfill
ΔE = ∫
i

e dz (21) considering the wall movements has be described in the previous

i
( i −1) Δz i

i
section. Herein, it is compared with the previous research results
E = ∑ ΔE
i j
(22) and model test data. The effects of displacement mode of the
j =1 retaining wall, wall movements, geometric shape of backfill,
where i, j are positive integers, i, j = 1, 2, 3.... When Δz is small and friction angle of soil-wall interface on the distribution of
enough, it can be approximated that the application point can be the earth pressure, resultant, and depth of application point
approximated at the midpoint of Pi−1Pi, and then the depth of were studied.
1090 Y. Lin et al.
Fig. 9. Values of Ka Obtained with the Proposed Method Compared to
Previous Studies: (a) Comparison of Ka under T Mode, (b)
Comparison of Ka under RB Mode, (c) Comparison of Ka under RT
Mode
4.1 Effect of Displacement Modes of Retaining Walls
In order to make the classical earth pressure theory applicable to
various displacement modes of retaining walls, Chang (1997)
proposed a method to calculate the active earth pressure that
considers the rotational displacement mode of the retaining wall.
Frydman and Keissar (1987) proposed a method to calculate the
earth pressure of the narrow backfill under T mode that considers
the arching effect. Li et al. (2017) used the slice element method
to derive the formula of the active earth pressure of the narrow
backfill that considers the wall movements. In order to verify the
proposed method, in Fig. 9, the calculation results of the proposed
method are compared with the previous studies results and the
model test results of Yang and Tang (2017). The parameters of
backfill are as follow: the unit weight of soil γ = 14.9 kN/m3, the
internal friction angle ϕ = 32.8° , the walls are vertical and so,
β1 = β 2 = 90° , the friction angle of soil-wall interface δ1 = δ 2 = 22° ,
and the displacement modes of the retaining wall are T, RB, and
RT. The coefficient of the earth pressure of a narrow backfill
under various displacement modes is proposed.
In the present example, up to five sliding surfaces are
considered. It can be concluded from Fig. 9(a) that Ka decreases
when z/B increases under T mode. It indicates that a narrower
backfill leads to a more significant effect from walls on the backfill.
The calculation results of the proposed method are very close to the
previous results obtained by Yang and Tang (2017). As shown in
Fig. 9(b), when the retaining wall moves under a RB mode, the
method proposed by Chang (1997) differs from the tests results, due
to the limited width of the backfill. When S < Sa , the results
z
calculated by Li et al. (2017) present a sharp increase, that
overestimates the earth pressure of the narrow backfill in the non-
limit state. Ka, calculated with the proposed method, increases
smoothly along z/B, in the case of the non-limit state. The results
calculated with proposed method are more consistent with the
model tests results from Yang and Tang (2017). As shown in
Fig. 9(c), when the retaining wall moves under a RT mode, the
method proposed by Chang (1997) which is inappropriate with the
limited backfill width condition differs from tests results, and the
error increases as z/B increases. In this case, the non-limit state soil
layer locates at the upper part of backfill. The coefficient of earth
pressure at the upper part of backfill is large. The results of the
proposed method are close to the calculation results from Li et al.
(2017) and the model test results of Yang and Tang (2017).
The reason for the slight difference between the calculated
results of the proposed method and the existing research results
comes from the different failure mechanism hypothesis. As it can
be seen from Fig. 9, the improved Coulomb’s method proposed
by Chang (1997) is not suitable for a narrow backfill where the
hypothesis that the backfill is semi-infinite soil is no longer
satisfied. The method of Frydman and Keissar (1987)’s method
is only applicable to T mode. Li et al. (2017)’s method is almost
consistent with the model test results. However, due to the defect
of the calculation model (Sun and Wang, 2017), the preset
parameter of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure is difficult to
select. Moreover, there is a deviation from the coefficient of
lateral earth pressure in the calculation results. The results need
to match the correction trial. In the studies presented above, the
calculation model of a narrow backfill cannot reflect the multiple
sliding surfaces when it is in the limit state. The proposed
method can reflect failure mechanisms of a narrow backfill and

Fig. 10. Comparisons between Predictions and Centrifuge Model Tests
Data: (a) B/H = 1.1, z/B = 0.6, (b) B/H = 0.3, z/B = 2.2, (c) B/H
= 0.22, z/B = 1.5, (d) B/H = 0.1, z/B = 3.3
be adapted to various displacement modes of the retaining wall.
The accuracy of the calculation results is high in the non-limit
state soil layer.
Fig. 11. Coefficient of the Earth Pressure under Different Wall Movements
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 1091
4.2 Effect of Wall Movements
Frydman and Keissar (1987) conducted a series of narrow
backfill centrifuge model tests. The earth pressure was recorded
when the retaining wall was moving. The parameters of soil are
as follow: the height of walls H = 8.5m , the width of backfill
B = 0.118H , the walls are vertical so β1 = β 2 = 90° , the unit
weight of the backfill, γ = 15.8 kN m3 , the internal friction angle
of the backfill soil ϕ = 36° , and the soil-wall interface friction
angle δ = 25° . The predictions from the proposed method are
compared with the data from centrifuge model tests in Fig. 10.
As it can be seen in Fig. 10, the proposed method can predict
the earth pressure at different measuring points from at rest to
active condition. The calculation results are close to the centrifuge
model tests data. The earth pressure decreases with the increasing
wall movements. Fig. 11 shows the distribution of the coefficient
of earth pressure under different wall movements, and the
centrifuge model tests data is the distribution of coefficient of
earth pressure in the active state. It can be clearly seen that the
proposed method can predict the process of the decreasing
coefficient of earth pressure gradually with the increasing wall
movements. Moreover, the phenomenon is correctly reflected
that the coefficient of earth pressure at the bottom of the backfill
is large under a RB mode.
4.3 Effect of the Backfill Geometry
The most significant difference between a narrow backfill and a
semi-limit backfill is the boundary conditions of backfill. In
practice engineering, the width of a backfill is limited and the
backside face is inclined. The effect of the backfill geometry on
earth pressure of a narrow backfill cannot be ignored. The
calculated results obtained with the proposed method show the
variation of the resultant and the application points with the
inclination of the backside face at various fill widths (Fig. 12). In
1092 Y. Lin et al.

Fig. 12. Variation of the Resultant and Application Points with the
Inclination of Backside Face at Various Fill Widths

order to control the variables, T mode was selected, because of

the typical failure, and H = 10m , γ = 15.8 kN m 3 , ϕ = 36° , and
δ 1 = δ 2 = 25° .
It can be seen from Fig. 12 that the resultant (Denoted as the
continuous line and the Y-axis was on the left.) and the depth of
application point (denoted as the imaginary line, and the Y-axis
on the right) decreases when B (Distance between wall base and
the backside face) decreases. After determining B, the resultant
and the depth of application point evolve with β (Inclination of
natural surface) as a parabolic curve. When β ≤ 60° , the
resultant of the narrow backfill and Zs are same as the results
obtained by Coulomb (1776). It can be inferred that the criterion
for the boundary between a narrow backfill and a semi-limit
backfill is that the first sliding surface reach at the backside face.
The geometry of boundary can be calculated as follow: Fig. 13. Effect of Interface Friction Angle on Narrow Backfill: (a) Coefficients
of the Earth Pressure under Different Friction Angles of Interface,
B sin (β 2 − α1 ) (b) Depth of Application Points with Friction of Interface at
= (26)
H sin β 2 sin α1 Various Fill Widths

It is worth noting that, when β = 70° or 80°, the resultant and

the depth of application point is greater than the results
calculated by Coulomb (1776). It can be seen from Eq. (26) that
the sliding surface in the narrow backfill at this time has already
reach at the backside face. The failure wedge receives the
horizontal thrust from the backside face, so the lateral earth
pressure on the retaining wall increases. The thrust exerted by
backside face decreases when β increases. At same time, the
weight of the backfill decreases when volume of backfill
decreases. Therefore, the resultant and the depth of application
point decrease.
As shown in Fig. 13, when both side walls are smooth
( δ1 = δ 2 = 0 ), the coefficient of earth pressure is constant. At this
time, results calculated with the proposed method are close to the
results calculated by Coulomb (1776). When the friction angles
of soil-wall interface increase ( δ1 = δ 2 = 25° ), the coefficient of
earth pressure decreases, and the depth of application point
decreases. Comparing δ 1 = 0, δ 2 = 25° and δ 1 = 25°, δ 2 = 0 in
Fig. 13, it can be concluded that Ka at top is influenced by δ1, and
δ2 causes Ka to decrease along the depth. It is such a phenomenon
that the stress transfer due to the friction.

4.4 Effect of the Soil-Wall Interface Friction Angle 5. Conclusions

In engineering, the roughness of soil-wall interface is often
different. The friction angle of soil-wall interface is an important
parameter to analyze the earth pressure against retaining walls.
Fig. 13 shows the coefficients of the earth pressure under
different frictions of interface. In order to control the variables,
the smooth interface ( δ = 0 ) and the rough interface ( δ = 25° )
were considered, T mode was be selected, because of the typical
failure, and H = 10m , B = 0.2 H , γ = 15.8 kN m 3 , ϕ = 36° , and
β1 = β 2 = 90° .
In this study, the failure mechanisms of the narrow backfill under
various displacement modes of retaining walls are studied by
finite element limit analysis. An inclined slice method was
proposed to estimate the earth pressure for the narrow backfill
from at rest to active condition under various displacement
modes of retaining walls. Through an extensive parametric
study, the major findings of this research are summarized below:
1. The soil shows the characteristics of progressive failure

because of different wall movements at different depths.
There are multiple sliding surfaces in a narrow backfill,
when it is in the failure state. The failure mechanisms are
influenced by the displacement modes of the retaining
wall, geometry of backfill, and the friction angles of the
soil-wall interface.
2. Based on the failure mechanisms of a narrow backfill, the
failure wedges in narrow backfill can be divided into two
class soil slice elements using a novel inclined slice
method. the results of the proposed method were consistent
with the tests data gather by previous studies.
3. According to the backfill geometry and soil parameters, the
criterion for the boundary between narrow backfill and
semi-limit soil has been proposed. The resultant and the
depth of application point decreases when the area of
backfill decreases or when the friction angles of the soil-
wall interface increases.
Acknowledgements
The financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant 41572253) is gratefully acknowledged.
Nomenclature
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ai = Iteration coefficient
B = Distance between the base of two walls (mm)
Bz = Distance between interface on both sides at the depth
z (mm)
dF = Supporting reaction force increment (kN/m)
dW = Gravity increment in soil slice element (kN/m)
E = Total active thrust acting on the soil (kN/m)
Es = Modulus of compression (MPa)
e1 = Force of the retaining wall on the slice element I
(kN/m)
e2 = Force of the retaining wall on the slice element II
(kN/m)
e3 = Force of the retaining wall on another side on the
slice element (kN/m)
F = Supporting reaction force of soil acting on sliding
surface (kN/m)
H = Height of the retaining wall (mm)
hi = Vertical thickness of the ith sliding surface (mm)
Ka = Coefficient of active earth pressure
K0 = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
N = Number of potential sliding surfaces
S = Maximum horizontal movement of the retaining
wall (mm)
Sa = Wall movement required for soil to reach active limit
state (mm)
Sc = Wall movement required to reach the wall friction
angle in the limit state (mm)
Sz = Horizontal wall movement at the depth z (mm)
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 1093
z= Depth of calculation (mm)
zcr1, zcr2 = Depths of the critical points (mm)
Zs = Application points of the resultant (mm)
α= Incline angle between sliding surfaces and the
horizontal line (°)
α1 = Incline angle between sliding surfaces and the
horizontal line from left side (°)
α2 = Incline angle between sliding surfaces and the
horizontal line from right side (°)
β= Inclination of walls (°)
β1 = Inclination of the left side (°)
β2 = Inclination of the right side (°)
δ= External friction angles (°)
δz = External friction angles at the depth z (°)
δ1 = External friction angle of the left side (°)
δ2 = External friction angle of the right side (°)
μ= Poisson's ratio of the soil
σh = Lateral earth pressure (kN/m2)
τ= Unit weight of the soil (kN/m3)
ϕ= Internal friction angle of the soil (°)
ϕ0 = Internal frication angle of the soil at rest (°)
ϕz = Internal friction angle at the depth z (°)
ORCID
Yu-jian Lin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0500-4217
Fu-quan Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5583-3734
References
Bahadori H, Farzalizadeh R, Barghi A, Hasheminezhad A (2018) A
comparative study between gravel and rubber drainage columns for
mitigation of liquefaction hazards. Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering 10(5):924-934, DOI: 10.1016/j.jrmge.
2018.03.008
Bang S (1985) Active earth pressure behind retaining walls. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 111(3):407-412, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1985)111:3(407)
Bowles JE (1977) Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY, USA, 269
Cao WG, Liu T, Xu Z (2019) Calculation of passive earth pressure using
the simplified principal stress trajectory method on rigid retaining
walls. Computers and Geotechnics 109:108-116, DOI: 10.1016/
j.compgeo.2019.01.021
Chang MF (1997) Lateral earth pressures behind rotating walls. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 34(34):498-509
Chen FQ, Lin YJ, Li DY (2019) Solution to active earth pressure of
narrow cohesionless backfill against rigid retaining walls under
translation mode. Soils and Foundations 59(1):151-161, DOI:
10.1016/j.sandf.2018.09.010
Chen JJ, Li MG, Wang JH (2017) Active earth pressure against rigid
retaining walls subjected to confined cohesionless soil. International
Journal of Geomechanics 17(6):06016041, DOI: 10.1061/(asce)
gm.1943-5622.0000855
Chen YK, Wang YM, Xu RQ, Gong XN (2004) Numerical analysis of
active earth pressure on rigid retaining wall. Chinese Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Engineering 23(6):989-995 (in Chinese)
1094 Y. Lin et al.
Coulomb CA (1776) Essais sur une application des regles des maximis
et minimis a quelques problems de statique relatits a larchitecture.
Mémoires de l' Académie Royale des Sciences présentés par divers
Savans 7:343-382
Fang YS, Chen TJ, Wu BF (1994) Passive earth pressures with various
wall movements. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 120(8):1307-
1323, DOI: 10.1061/(Asce)0733-9410(1994)120:8(1307)
Fang YS, Ishibashi I (1986) Static earth pressures with various wall
movements. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 112(3):317-333,
DOI: 10.1061/(Asce)0733-9410(1986)112:3(317)
Frydman S, Keissar I (1987) Earth pressure on retaining walls near rock
faces. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 113(6):586-599
Greco VR (2013) Active thrust on retaining walls of narrow backfill
width. Computers and Geotechnics 50(3):66-78, DOI: 10.1016/
j.compgeo.2012.12.007
Greco VR (2014) Analytical solution of seismic pseudo-static active
thrust acting on fascia retaining walls. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 57(2):25-36, DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.09.022
Handy R (1985) The arch in soil arching. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 111(3):302-318.
Hasheminezhad A, Bahadori H (2019) Seismic response of shallow
foundations over liquefiable soils improved by deep soil mixing
columns. Computers and Geotechnics 110:251-273, DOI: 10.1016/
j.compgeo.2019.02.019
Jaky J (1944) The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. Jounarl of the
Society of Hungarian Architects and Engineers 78(22):355-388
James RG, Bransby PL (1970) Experimental and theoretical investigations
of a passive earth pressure problem. Géotechnique 20(1):17-37,
DOI: 10.1680/geot.1970.20.1.17
Jiang MJ, He J, Wang JF, Liu F, Zhang WC (2014) Distinct simulation
of earth pressure against a rigid retaining wall considering inter-
particle rolling resistance in sandy backfill. Granular Matter 16(5):797-
814, DOI: 10.1007/s10035-014-0515-3
Khosravi MH, Pipatpongsa T, Takemura J (2013) Experimental analysis
of earth pressure against rigid retaining walls under translation
mode. Géotechnique 63(12):1020-1028, DOI: 10.1680/geot.12.P.021
Krabbenhoft K, Lyamin A, J, K (2015) Optum computational engineering.
OptumG2, Retrieved September 15, 2015, https://optumce.com
Li MG, Chen JJ, Wang JH (2017) Arching effect on lateral pressure of
confined granular material: Numerical and theoretical analysis.
Granular Matter 19(2):20, DOI: 10.1007/s10035-017-0700-2
Liu FQ (2014) Lateral earth pressures acting on circular retaining walls.
International Journal of Geomechanics 14(3):04014002, DOI: 10.1061/
(Asce)Gm.1943-5622.0000291
Lu K-L, Yang Y (2010) Preliminary study of active earth pressure under
nonlimit state. Rock and Soil Mechanics 31(2):615-619 (in Chinese)
Matsuzawa H, Hazarika H (1996) Analyses of active earth pressure
against rigid retaining wall subjected to different modes of movement.
Soils & Foundations 36(3):51-65, DOI: 10.3208/sandf.36.3_51
Milligan GWE (1983) Soil deformations near anchored sheet-pile walls.
Géotechnique 33(1):41-55
Ni PP, Mangalathu S, Song LH, Mei GX, Zhao YL (2018) Displacement-
dependent lateral earth pressure models. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 144(6):04018032, DOI: 10.1061/(Asce)Em.1943-7889.
0001451
Rankine WJM (1857) On the stability of loose earth. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London 147:9-28
Sun JS, Wang YM (2017) Mistake in calculation theory for earth pressure
against retaining walls based on differential stratum equilibrium.
China Civil Engineering Journal 50(5):114-122 (in Chinese)
Take WA, Valsangkar AJ (2001) Earth pressures on unyielding retaining
walls of narrow backfill width. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
38(6):1220-1230
Terzaghi K (1934) Large retaining-wall tests. I. Pressure of dry sand.
Engineering News-Record 102(20):136-140
Wang YZ (2000) Distribution of earth pressure on a retaining wall.
Géotechnique 50(1):83-88, DOI: 10.1680/geot.2000.50.1.83
Yang KH, Ching JY, Zornberg JG (2011) Reliability-based design for
external stability of narrow mechanically stabilized earth walls:
Calibration from centrifuge tests. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 137(3):239-253, DOI: 10.1061/
(Asce)Gt.1943-5606.0000423
Yang MH, Dai XB, Zhao MH, Luo H (2017) Calculation of active earth
pressure for limited soils with curved sliding surface. Rock and Soil
Mechanics 38(7):2029-2035 (in Chinese)
Yang MH, Deng B (2019) Simplified method for calculating the active
earth pressure on retaining walls of narrow backfill width based on
DEM analysis. Advances in Civil Engineering 2019:1507825, DOI:
10.1155/2019/1507825
Yang MH, Tang XC (2017) Rigid retaining walls with narrow cohesionless
backfills under various wall movement modes. International Journal
of Geomechanics 17(11):04017098, DOI: 10.1061/(Asce)Gm.1943-
5622.0001007
Ying HW, Huang D, Xie YX (2010) Study of active earth pressure on
retaining wall subject to translation mode considering lateral pressure on
adjacent existing basement exterior wall. Chinese Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Engineering 30(S1):2970-2978 (in Chinese)
Ying HW, Zhang JH, Wang XG, Li BH, Wei Z (2016) Experimental
analysis of passive earth pressure against rigid retaining wall under
translation mode for finite soils. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 38(6):978-986 (in Chinese)
Zhang J, Shamoto Y, Tokimatsu K (1998) Evaluation of earth pressure
under any lateral deformation. Soils & Foundations 38(1):15-33